Ties and notes in different layers

[mark carlson]

In the attached file, is there a way I can get the ties in layer 2 in measures 9 & 11 not to obscure the notes happening at the same time in layer 1?

Thanks,

Mark
OS 10.15.2
Finale 26

[motet]

Could you put the triplets on the top staff? C is kind of low for the treble clef, but still readable.

[John Ruggero]

What you have just run into is the reason that I prefer Chopin's method of indicating pedal with pedal marks rather than the actual held value in notation, which can be cumbersome. It might then look like this. (I wasn't sure if you intended a pedal retake in m. 10 so I put one in.)

Chopin style pedaling.jpeg

[mark carlson]

What you have just run into is the reason that I prefer Chopin's method of indicating pedal with pedal marks rather than the actual held value in notation, which can be cumbersome. It might then look like this. (I wasn't sure if you intended a pedal retake in m. 10 so I put one in.)

Chopin style pedaling.jpeg

Thanks! The reason I'd rather not do this in this particular situation is that I want the pianist to make sure that the two As in a row at the beginning of m. 10 are not just repeated notes but part of separate lines. The eighth rest of the triplet as I notated it makes that clear (at least, to me it does).

This is a case where writing by hand would be superior and easier than using Finale: In the olden days, I would have just written the beginning and the end of the ties that cross over notes, suggesting an invisible line. But I can't figure out any way to do that on Finale: it's impossible to shape an actual tie so that it is just the start of the curved line; using the curved line of a slur is sort of OK, but it's a different thickness than a tie, so it stands out and just doesn't look good.

I tried everything else I could think of and eventually opted for adding a third staff for systems 3 & 4.

If you think that looks terrible, please let me know!

I appreciate your help very much!

[mark carlson]

Could you put the triplets on the top staff? C is kind of low for the treble clef, but still readable.

Thanks, motet! I tried it, and wasn't altogether happy with how it looked. I eventually opted for adding a 3rd staff for the two systems in question. I attached it to my previous response, in case you want to look.

Mark

[John Ruggero]

Hi Mark. I think your solution is much better than the original and quite clear. The two A's you mentioned could be made distinct within the style I mentioned with stems up and down, (the triplet could even be played by the right hand at that point), but I think that you, as the composer, just prefer seeing the held chords.

Another possibility might be to shorten the ties on the first chord to l. v. size and leave the ones on the next line as is:

ties 2.jpeg

But I am not sure that this is really acceptable.

[mark carlson]

Hi Mark. I think your solution is much better than the original and quite clear. The two A's you mentioned could be made distinct within the style I mentioned with stems up and down, (the triplet could even be played by the right hand at that point), but I think that you, as the composer, just prefer seeing the held chords.

Another possibility might be to shorten the ties on the first chord to l. v. size and leave the ones on the next line as is:

ties 2.jpeg

But I am not sure that this is really acceptable.

Thanks! I like your new solution quite a lot--and better than my extra staff--but how do you get the short backwards ties in m. 10? Ah, never mind: I see that they just stay that way. Well, great! I'll do it this way.

Mark

[John Ruggero]

I am glad that version worked for you.

It happened that the second chord continues on the next system in both cases, so you lucked out with the second tie. But it could still work if both chords were on the same system by creating a new ties on the second chord and then using the tie tool to position them in front of the chord. But this would work for notation only, not playback, of course.

[Anders Hedelin]

Just another thought: I notice that you have triplet figures and brackets in a number of places. Now, some of us omit these repetitions, to avoid cluttering. In my opinion there's no need to reenter neither figures nor brackets once the simple and well-known pattern is established: left-hand figurations are based on triplets.

[mark carlson]

Just another thought: I notice that you have triplet figures and brackets in a number of places. Now, some of us omit these repetitions, to avoid cluttering. In my opinion there's no need to reenter neither figures nor brackets once the simple and well-known pattern is established: left-hand figurations are based on triplets.

Thanks, Anders! I just eliminated a bunch of them, thanks to your suggestion. I was thinking I should keep them when they are three in one hand against two in the other, unless that had been going on already. But if you suggest doing it even in those places, like mm. 18-19 and 25-26, I'll gladly eliminate those, as well. I'm in favor of a score as uncluttered as possible.

Mark

[Anders Hedelin]

I was thinking I should keep them when they are three in one hand against two in the other, unless that had been going on already. But if you suggest doing it even in those places, like mm. 18-19 and 25-26, I'll gladly eliminate those, as well. I'm in favor of a score as uncluttered as possible.

Personally I would remove them even there, also when the rhythm changes from straight to triplet eighths, since the vertical placement and the beams tell what's what.

[mark carlson]

I was thinking I should keep them when they are three in one hand against two in the other, unless that had been going on already. But if you suggest doing it even in those places, like mm. 18-19 and 25-26, I'll gladly eliminate those, as well. I'm in favor of a score as uncluttered as possible.

Personally I would remove them even there, also when the rhythm changes from straight to triplet eighths, since the vertical placement and the beams tell what's what.

OK! I shall follow your advice. Thanks!